on-demand loaded non-Checkable nodes

4 posts, 0 answers
  1. Tomas
    Tomas avatar
    2 posts
    Member since:
    Nov 2008

    Posted 07 Nov 2008 Link to this post

    Hello

    I load nodes on-demand using a webservice into a radtreeview where some nodes should not be checkable. The RadTreeNodeData class does not have a Checkable property but I am using my own specilaized class where I have a "Checkable" member:

    [Serializable]
      public class TreeNodeData
      {
        public string Text;
        public string Value;
        public int ExpandMode; //Telerik.Web.UI.TreeNodeExpandMode
        public bool Checkable;
      }

    This does not work, all nodes are always checkable. Is there a way to on-demand load nodes that are not checkable?

    regards

    Tomas Särnhammar
  2. Simon
    Admin
    Simon avatar
    2281 posts

    Posted 10 Nov 2008 Link to this post

    Hi Tomas,

    I tried to reproduce the issue as you described it but to no success - Nodes received their Checkable property properly from the Web Service. I also used Telerik.Web.UI version 2008.3.1105.

    Could you check whether your version is the latest?

    Thank you in advance for your co-operation.

    Sincerely yours,
    Simon
    the Telerik team

    Check out Telerik Trainer, the state of the art learning tool for Telerik products.
  3. UI for ASP.NET Ajax is Ready for VS 2017
  4. Meaning Of Lights
    Meaning Of Lights avatar
    24 posts
    Member since:
    Dec 2007

    Posted 10 Nov 2008 Link to this post

    ok this fix works for the Checked property as well.
  5. Tomas
    Tomas avatar
    2 posts
    Member since:
    Nov 2008

    Posted 11 Nov 2008 Link to this post

    We used the 2008.2 release, and now after a trickier-than-it-should-be update to 2008.3 the Checkable property does indeed work.

    You have added a dependency on a custom JQuery. I do not approve of that :-). I am doing some trickery to be able to create RadTreeViews client-side, so including all scripts in the right order became non-trivial i this case.

    thanks

    Tomas Särnhammar
Back to Top